The classical man is just a bundle of routine, ideas and tradition. If you follow the classical pattern, you are understanding the routine, the tradition, the shadow, you are not understanding yourself. Truth has no path. Truth is living and therefore changing. Bruce lee

We are trying to determine if a man named Jesus rose from the dead. You presented 4 claims. We are going to judge whether they are actual facts based on a reality that occurred. That's what he thread is for.

So, back up and present your evidence that these claims are facts - and also read my request asking what events can be accepted as facts based only on historical textual accounts (everyone).

These are not claims. They are recognized as historical facts by a VAST MAJORITY of all Biblical scholars and Historians. And this agreement is between scholars who have OPPOSING viewpoints about the Resurrection.

You don't believe in the Resurrection... correct? Well neither do MANY of the scholars who accept these 4 historical facts.

You don't believe in the reported miracles of Jesus.. correct? Well neither do MANY of the scholars who accept these 4 historical facts.

So I find it remarkable that you will disagree with THESE SAME HISTORIANS (about these facts) who happen to agree with you (a nonbeliever) that there was no Resurrection.

But anyway... there is good reasons why THE VAST MAJORITY of Biblical scholars agree on these 4 historical facts... EVEN THOUGH many of them don't believe the Resurrection occured.

So if you want, we can go over each historical fact and I will show why they are almost universally accepted as historical facts. Now... if you're not an historian, then I'm not sure how you can disagree with the VAST MAJORITY of these scholars, but we can deal with that later.

But let me go home... get the material... and we'll go over each one.

One point though... and I've said this up front already... these 4 historical facts DO NOT PROVE that Jesus rose from the dead. What I've kept maintiaing all along is that the Resurection is the BEST EXPLANATION OR INFERENCE FROM THESE FOUR HISTORICAL FACTS.

fran sees the bible as History. so the stuff in the bible is Historical Fact.

i see the bible as fairy tales. so the stuff in there is crap written by goat herders.

You take the miracles out of the Bible, and you won't find anything in there that has been directly disputed as history by any document or artifact or archaelogical find. In fact, the Bible has been found to be so incredibly reliable as an historical document, that many archaelogists use the Bible for clues in their search for ancient cities and people, etc.

But dont take my word for it... just name one historical document... or artifact... or archaelogical find... that disputes any written record in the Bible. You won't find any.

The only reason people will not accept the general reliability of the Bible as an historical document is not because of any evidence... but because there are reported miracles in those same documents... and there is an extreme prejudice and bias against the notion that miracles are possible. So they throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. They disregard everything.

But the neat thing about WLC's approach (which I'm using)... is that I dont have to appeal to miracles or even need to assert that the Bible is divinely inspired. I dont need to do that at all. All i'm doing is using NON MIRACLOUS... WIDELY ACCEPTED historical facts (from scholars who do not believe the Resurrection happened) as my premises. Nothing else. It's that simple. And oh so very logica and rational.

How can biblical scholars be taken seriously, they only have one subject. To study the bible, more than likely written on the influence of opium tea. Is that inspiration from god? Opium tea?

Logged

The classical man is just a bundle of routine, ideas and tradition. If you follow the classical pattern, you are understanding the routine, the tradition, the shadow, you are not understanding yourself. Truth has no path. Truth is living and therefore changing. Bruce lee

what's your point? you believe that jesus was resurrected. many of us here, don't.

do you think that you'll win over souls for christ? are you going to get a gold star next to your name in heaven? or, are you a martyr like jesus and paul and peter?

I do this because I care about you. Because I love you. Because there is an afterlife and I want you to be in heaven for all of eternity.

Will I win over souls for Christ thru apologetics? It is highly doubtful... especially if i'm speaking with a person who doesn't want to be persuaded. But I do it anyway because the Bible says to give a LOGICAL DEFENSE (the kind found in a court of law) for my belief.

And I also do it for another reason. I may never persuade someone like you... but there are those who may be watching... who have not made a choice yet... who may look at the arguments (logical defense) being made from each side.. and who will be persuaded because they are still openminded.

Apologetics was never meant to be Evangelistic. Rarely does Apologetics ever succeed as an evangelistic tool. What Apologetics is, is a pre-evangelistic tool to be used for those people who have serious intellectual roadblocks when it comes to issues about God, Jesus, and the Bible.

I wont get any gold stars in heaven. I do this because my mind seems to like the rough and tumble arena of divirgent ideas being tested and hypothesized and debated and critiqued.

And like i said before... I do this because I genuinely care about you and all in here.

You take the miracles out of the Bible, and you won't find anything in there that has been directly disputed as history by any document or artifact or archaelogical find.

Noah and the flood.

Name one archaelogical find or historical document which shows Noah never existed.

And as for the flood... there is not even any monolithic agreement among biblical scholars that a worldwide flood is being talked about in the Bible. Many scholars think it might have been a localized event.

So, being the open minded person that I am...I am willing to reserve judgment about what the Bible was actually saying.

but what is being disputed is that the resurrection as the best explanation... not that there is no evidence.

im failing to see where resurrection is even a plausible explanation even if you could use your "historical facts" as facts at all.

the best explanation (if any of this happened at all) would be that the body was stolen by one or more of the disciples to convince the others that he had risen.

this is actually a terrible argument and i cant believe WLC gets any kudos at all for it.

THANK YOU!! Now you're using your noodle. The explanation you just gave, is indeed ONE explanation that nonbelivers have offered. But remember the thesis... can this explanation SATISFY all of the 4 historical facts mentioned? no. It does take into account the empty tomb... but it doesnt take into account the other 3.

That is why this explanation of yours is far inferior to the Resurrection theory.. because the resurrection DOES take into account and explain all 4 historical facts.

we can go over this in more detail if you like... but you are doing exactly what needs to be done. What all the debates are about on this topic. Trying to explain the 4 historical facts.

The VAST MAJORITY of biologists and geneticists, who use the SCIENTIFIC METHOD agree that evolution is SCIENTIFIC FACT.

Have you left your bronze age creation myths behind, Fran? No? Why not?

While the reason for your maintained ignorance is not the same as the reason atheists here look at your "historical facts" as spurious claims, I am interested in your response.

Tell me what evolution is. In your own words. How you understand it.

My undersanding of evolution is irrelevant to the point of the questions you fail to answer in this last post.

Answers, or no?

If you wish to make a quick google search to discover a succinct, lay, rendering of one of the most well supported paradigms in the natural sciences before you answer, that's fine. If you intend to dodge, well, whatever.

You take the miracles out of the Bible, and you won't find anything in there that has been directly disputed as history by any document or artifact or archaelogical find.

Noah and the flood.

Name one archaelogical find or historical document which shows Noah ever existed.

And as for the flood... there is not even any monolithic agreement among biblical scholars that a worldwide flood is being talked about in the Bible.

Maybe because there's never been any evidence for it? Oopsie.

Quote

Many scholars think it might have been a localized event.

So, being the open minded person that I am...I am willing to reserve judgment about what the Bible was actually saying.

Biblegod killed every living (land based) being using a local flood? That's very open minded thinking! How does that work exactly?

And let me get this straight: your evidence for the miracles in the bible is based on your theory that, if you take everything that's even remotely divinely related in the bible out of the bible, the bible doesn't dispute any scientific findings? And therefore the miracles in the bible are real?

Ah...no, it's not. By accepting insupportable premises according to your indoctrination, you're settled in on the short bus to delusion town.

Saying it doesn't make so. You've just made a lot of mere assertions.. which anyone can do. Let's try and reserve judgment and just follow the process of inquiry like we should.

What can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Oh, I see, did I need to include an appeal to authority as well?

You made the claims, consider them challenged. I say no one worth their salt as an objective, secular historian would warrant calling those four claims historical facts*. If they did, I would refer them to the claims of Suetonius, Tacitus, and Dio Cassius, and ask the obvious questions.

Then it's off to Herodotus.

*Edit: minus the first one, jesus' burial by some means is inevitable, as he was a human being and must have died.

it takes into account all of them-1 if someone stole the body= jesus was buried.

2. if the body was taken = tomb was empty

3. there was no verifiable post mortem apperence= mark is the 1st gospel written and there is no account of this in mark. matt and luke copied and added to mark adding the post mortem appearences (along with someone inserting a false ending to mark) add john to the mix with all of it's additions and the accounts dont hold water at all.

4. if the disciples were fooled into believing he had risen, this explains the origin of their belief that he did.

And like i said before... I do this because I genuinely care about you and all in here.

Believe it or not Fran we care about you too, we feel your life is swallowed up by a story that is just as fantastic and unreal as Lord of the rings, Harry potter, just because the bible is older don’t make it the book of life. The bible is not life, its not today or tomorrow it’s a myth one of thousands. what god is right? what holy scripture is the righteous. what group, denomination, religion, superstition is right? How many people that are innocent must die for a 1 and 10thousand chance you are worshiping the right or wrong god?

Have you ever seen a ghost? a goblin? Can you speak to the dead? Or is this just another piece of revenue? How can a person raise from the dead 3 days later, how come we have never seen a winged horse? Or a talking snake, that speaks perfect Arabic, without going SSSSSSSSSS?

Logged

The classical man is just a bundle of routine, ideas and tradition. If you follow the classical pattern, you are understanding the routine, the tradition, the shadow, you are not understanding yourself. Truth has no path. Truth is living and therefore changing. Bruce lee

For evolution go here there is no need to derail the thread. I'm still waiting for evidence that he even existed outside of claims without evidence

Logged

Quote

At least two thirds of our miseries spring from human stupidity, human malice and those great motivators and justifiers of malice and stupidity, idealism, dogmatism and proselytizing zeal on behalf of religious or political idols.

Please state them then for clarification. I have a feeling that something you may consider to be a "fact", I may feel differently about. I think that once we can agree on what we both consider facts then we can take the subject in the way you were describing. I just think that for clarification now, it is best to put all the facts out on the table and make sure everyone agrees with them. Other wise you can at a later point in time decide to change what you chose to present as facts. Let's make sure everyone is on the same page first. Allow me to start by presenting a fact. The Bible will not fly as a historical document or as means of providing "facts" for the purpose of this argument. I think everyone here can agree with that.

Hello Pink Milk...

I explained everything carefully in Reply #51. I don't understand what the hang up is.

take care

The things you listed in reply 51 are not historical facts. Nor did you state them as facts. You stated them as things you intended to prove. Or at least that is what it really seemed like you were trying to say. I personally do not accept those things as facts. Now if you provide me evidence outside of the Bible from the time period that say those things to be true, I'll accept them as facts for the sake of this argument. Now we are trying to prove, or at least as I understand the purpose of the thread to be, the resurrection of Jesus. I think that you were onto something with your approach to addressing the issue, however in order for that approach to work we have to show the evidence, and agree that the evidence is valid. So please show the supporting evidence that proves that the things you listed are facts and not just statements.

Logged

I can see where your coming from but on the other hand i dont want my kid to learn about evolution or see homosexualisom talked about in a scince classs ethier. <-- From Youguysarepathetic

At least I have a mother. Have you? (serious question) <---From Skylark889

These are not claims. They are recognized as historical facts by a VAST MAJORITY of all Biblical scholars and Historians. And this agreement is between scholars who have OPPOSING viewpoints about the Resurrection.

We're starting from ground zero Fran. I know what historical facts mean.[1]If you want to go through the whole thing properly, then you can't just post what you claim are 4 historical facts without documentation. Post the documentation for them, then we'll go on from there. Let the members judge them. You know as well as I do that scholars can be biased and make mistakes, so let's see the evidence for the historical claims first, and avoid all the logical fallacies we all know about, such as appeal to popularity, appeal to authority, etc. We are going to judge them as to whether they are historical facts or historical opinions. The burden of proof is yours. This is to your advantage, to document them for all the readers here.[2]

After that, we'll move on to whether or not they have any relationship to an actual physical or supernatural event that may have taken place in the distant past, on this planet, and what level of rational skepticism can be overcome by the historical facts you can document.

Quote

One point though... and I've said this up front already... these 4 historical facts DO NOT PROVE that Jesus rose from the dead. What I've kept maintiaing all along is that the Resurection is the BEST EXPLANATION OR INFERENCE FROM THESE FOUR HISTORICAL FACTS.

It could be that there is no explanation because we can't get enough facts, and so the members may end up saying they cannot conclude for sure what happened. "I don't know" may be the answer. There is no requirement that any particular conclusion be reached, unless a person feels the burden of proof has been met.

Fran, I'm also still waiting on your opinion about this for the debate, because it is relevant -"We need to see the evidence, but also we need to decide if any type of miraculous claim or unreasonable claim can be trusted to be valid using only written historical accounts of people without remaining physical evidence. At what point do written historical accounts fail to reliably justify a belief in the claims they support, i.e. UFOs, rising from the dead, demons, dragons and so forth. This is an important part of the debate."

Quote

Take care

I always do.

Sidenote: Please leave off the comments on evolution and the rest. This may take several weeks to go through, so all the extra bonus comments are really going to pile up.

"A historical fact is an ordinary fact with some additional information. According to the Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary, a fact is "anything done or that comes to pass; an act; a deed; an effect produced or achieved; an event; reality; truth; a true statement. To make this kind of fact "historical," you must include the time, place, act, and the protagonist--usually human--who performed the act. A historical fact also has a source from which all of the other parts of the fact are derived. (In historical writing, the source appears in the reference note, not with the fact itself.) "

Fact in HistoryA common rhetorical cliché states, "History is written by the winners." This phrase suggests but does not examine the use of facts in the writing of history. E. H. Carr in his 1961 volume, What is History?, argues that the inherent biases from the gathering of facts makes the objective truth of any historical perspective idealistic and impossible. Facts are, "like fish in the Ocean," of which we may only happen to catch a few, only an indication of what is below the surface. Even a dragnet cannot tell us for certain what it would be like to live below the Ocean's surface. Even if we do not discard any facts (or fish) presented, we will always miss the majority; the site of our fishing, the methods undertaken, the weather and even luck play a vital role in what we will catch. Additionally, the composition of history is inevitably made up by the compilation of many different bias of fact finding - all compounded over time. He concludes that for a historian to attempt a more objective method, one must accept that history can only aspire to a conversation of the present with the past - and that one's methods of fact gathering should be openly examined. As with science, historical truth and facts will therefore change over time and reflect only the present consensus (if that).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#Fact_in_History

You take the miracles out of the Bible, and you won't find anything in there that has been directly disputed as history by any document or artifact or archaelogical find.

Noah and the flood.

Name one archaelogical find or historical document which shows Noah ever existed.

And as for the flood... there is not even any monolithic agreement among biblical scholars that a worldwide flood is being talked about in the Bible. Many scholars think it might have been a localized event.

So, being the open minded person that I am...I am willing to reserve judgment about what the Bible was actually saying.

take care

Name one that does(with verifiable PROOF)

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

I'll tell you how this conversation will go, since I had this same conversation with Fran back in January. Fran will tell you he can't prove God exists by presenting physical evidence. But what Fran will tell you is that the resurrection of Jesus is reliably true, as discerned by the historical method, and that Jesus' resurrection thus supported is ample proof that God exists. You'll challenge him to demonstrate how the historical method supports truth claims about Jesus' resurrection, and that's where Fran will exit the conversation (without the courtesy of letting you know he's leaving), though he might beat around the bush for a while before jumping out.

He didn't support his claim with me back then, and he won't do it with you now. He'll tell you he has evidence, but he won't actually present the evidence. Or, he'll present something he says is evidence, but we'll pick it apart, and Fran will be left with nothing but hollow claims.

Good luck to all of you who engage with Fran on this topic. Or maybe I should offer good luck to Fran; he needs it more than anyone else.

So let me get this straight. Are you disputing that the 4 historical facts I've presented are not historical?

Yes.

Quote

That these 4 historical facts are not agreed upon as historical facts by the vast majority of Biblical Scholars and Historians?

I don't know if they are or not. I don't care either. The Argument from Authority means nothing to me. If they believe without evidence then their opinion is useless. If they have evidence then you should be able to supply it.

Fran, I know you think you mean well, but the Jesus story does not hold up. Even if it was documented in the bible, it still doesn't hold up.

A man who was supposedly born of a virgin, performed miracles, healed the sick, walked on water and resurrected into heaven? Just look at that previous statement. Evidence doesn't mean a thing when making claims like that. We want proof. Where is the proof? Oh I forgot, the disciples saw many of these things right? Even if they did see Jesus' works, they had faith by seeing and not by believing like you have to do.

You then say that you love us. Tell me something Fran, what is it that you love about me the most? You see, you don't even know me. I could be a Christian in disguise so I can't believe you when you say you love us. I know you think it sounds good, but be real. You don't know us like that.

This is why people hate Christianity so much. You guys are too busy walking around with your heads in the afterlife. Always thinking about what's going to happen when I die or the next man die. Always focusing on getting everyone into a place that only exist if you have faith. Always damning people to hell. Always speaking on behalf of your God while he remains silent. If you Christians love us so much, you'd stop preaching and let us focus on what's happening right now because I don't know about everyone here, but I don't want to go around thinking about where my "soul" may end up.

I do have an important question for you though. If intelligent life exist somewhere else in our universe, did Jesus die for those peoples sins too?

Hopefully, life will be discovered elsewhere in our universe during my lifetime. If it happens, I predict it will shatter religious that are taught all over the world. There also is a very good chance that if life is found somewhere else, our government will try to cover it up for that very reason. Religious people may go totally nuts.